Religion in Science class?

Many people argue whether or not the theory of Intelligent Design is a religion, and whether it should be integrated into science classes, along with the popular theory of Darwinism.

First, lets discuss the basis of Intelligent Design being either a scientific theory or a religion, worded to convince the minds of the public that it is a so-called theory. In this argument a very popular question arises- who is the intelligent designer? Some will argue it is God, or that it is a futuristic designer (where did he come from!?), or even perhaps a time traveling alien from Mars. A scientific theory has scientific evidence- not just physical evidence, but scientific. Evidence is there to support the theory at hand. Although scientific evidence has no universal definition, it is assumed that it is applicable to the subject. Scientific evidence has more leverage than physical evidence in any case. Discovering scientific evidence usually means the theory it is supporting is correct, thus making it an inductive argument. The theory of Evolution has many new-age technologies to back it up (Genetics, DNA coding, ect). However, unlike the theory of Evolution, Intelligent Design relies solely on physical identification (such as organisms seeming, or looking "too complex" for evolution to have occurred) to back it up; thus making Intelligent Design seem more like an overnight idea than a theory studied for hundreds of years.


So why should we, or shouldn't we, have it taught in science classes? 

One of the key fundamentals of today's technology, today's medicine, and today's biology, is the theory of evolution. Why should we disregard that and introduce a new "scientific" theory with no evidence? Without the theory of evolution, we wouldn't be able to produce new vaccines, or antibiotics, as we would lack the study of how our genes and cells have changed overtime, and our reactions to certain disease. However, if we start introducing Intelligent Design, we would be preaching God in our science classroom. Everyone has a right to their own religion and system of beliefs, but also the right to education and knowledge; however, there is a difference between forcing religion on someone and teaching science in class.

Evolution is a religion not science

Evolution means the process by which the different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. No one can prove evolution that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved because one can only observe what exists in the present and not the past. We know that there were no scientists or any human being millions of years ago to witness the forming of the first life of any kind, and of course, we cannot repeat the occurring of the event just so we can take down the observations. All the information and evidence the scientists have is from the research that only exists right now in the present.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

Evolution is a religion because there is no actual information and fact to prove it, so we can either become evolutionists who believes that the theory is true and follow the theory or we can ignore this and spend our times on things we might actually be able to find out the truth to. For things that cannot be proven, no one is there to tell us what is true and false. It is true if we truly believe in it.“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

Should Religion be taught in schools?

Question: Religion is a practice someone chooses to follow, intelligent design is a religious theory hiding under different words. Who gets to decide that religion be taught at a school and not as a choice?
A religion is a practice someone chooses to follow, a religion shouldn't be forced upon a person if they do not believe or want to follow the religion. It is well known that many people believe in Intelligent Design. They like to say that a "designer" is the creater. Who is the designer? Now most people that do not believe in intelligent design would say that the designer is God; the believers dont want to classify the creator as god because then it is a religious view and therefore could not be taught in schools. But because they have changed the words and meanings a bit it could be taught. Who gets to decide that religion be taught at a school not as a choice? Because it is basically religion talking. It is thought that it should not be taught seeing as practicing a religion is a choice.

The premise of this argument would be that intelligent design is a religious theory hiding under different words. While the conclusion would be that religion is a practice someone chooses to follow.

This would be a Deductive Argument. This is because the premise is true which would mean that the conclusion would have to be true. Which means we have a valid argument. Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools because that would be almost forcing someone to believe a religion that is not what they believe in. Although some people might not agree with Evolution, but unlike intelligent design it has much more evidence that makes sense and can be explained. If someone equates teaching evolution with forced belief I would say to them that the subjects aren't very similar. This is because we have proof of evolution. Some people may not believe in evolution and complain that, that is like forcing them to believe; but its not like they are being lied to. What is being taught is proved and is true. Students in high school choose what they want to believe. Just because its being taught doesn't mean they will believe it. For the reasons above this is why intelligent design (based on religious views) should not be taught in schools.

Is there anyway to scientifically prove the idea of “Intelligent Design”?

Question: Is there anyway to scientifically prove the idea of “Intelligent Design”?

First of all: What is "Intelligent Design"? This so-called theory or proposition is the belief that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."(Discovery Institute, 2007) Lets look at the source of this quote. The Discovery Institute is an organization that advertises itself as program that "supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory". This definition would inherently imply that Intelligent Design is a fact, as it "supports scientists", and "improves schools", but yet there seem to be some disagreement among the "enlightened community". To quote Henry M. Morris (Ph. D.) of the Institute for Creation Research, which advocates for both Intelligent Design and Creationism, "(Intelligent Design) is neo-creationism, a form of creationism restated in non-religious terms." This would seem to suggest that Intelligent Design is merely Creationism (the basis of how the world was created, based on the beliefs of there being an omnipotent God), rephrased; These "scientists" are really men of good faith, who have replaced the word "God" in their arguments with the self-introduced phrase "Intelligent Agent". Is is, as proclaimed by countless supporters, a science that "proves" (mono)theism.

So sticking with the same belief that Judge Jones, representing the United Stated Supreme Court, had in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, which is that Intelligent Design is Creationism, rephrased (or replaced) to become legal and constitutional to teach in school, the question changes to: Can Creationism be scientifically proven? The simple answer to this is, no!

Lets look at this "theory". It states that God, or an "Intelligent Agent" designed some forms of life on Earth, therefore filling in the gaps left by the theory of Darwinian Evolution. Now while Evolution is just a theory, and not fact, there is loads of evidence to back it up. Should it be taught as a fact? That's different argument, but I'd like to point out that the theories of Gravity, Friction, and the spherical nature of the Earth are not fact either, despite them being taught so in schools.

So what is the "proof" that these Creationists/Intelligent Designers propose? The fact that some things in nature are "irreducibly complex", or impossible to have formed on their own as they would be useless. The example they focus on is the "living motor" of the bacterial flagellum, but it has already been proven that parts of this could have developed for a completely unrelated purpose. As well, the lack of an explanation for one thing does not disprove the theory of Evolution,and by the same token one questionable fact does by no means prove Intelligent Design. Their other bit of "proof"? The fact that some aspects of life work so perfectly, "they look like a creation of an 'Intelligent Agency'". However, the foundation of Darwin's Evolution disproves this, as those "designed" elements could easily be the work of Natural Selection, whereby the most useful or beneficial traits and mutations are passed on through generations of a species, and the detrimental ones die out.

Of course, there's no way to prove 100% that Intelligent Design is not scientific fact, but with our current technology and methods of researching, I believe that, just as we assume the quantum-mechanic theory to be fact, we can also assume Intelligent Design cannot be proved as fact. As well, the fact that we can prove almost all aspects of life have evolved from earlier, less complex aspects should be proof enough.

While I could go on forever listing reasons why Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be proven through scientific fact, as there is no universal evidence, and the "facts" given can be scientifically disproved, I don't have that much time. To conclude: Evolution is a theory with many gaps, but much supporting evidence; to the contrary, Creationism (and therefore "Intelligent Design" has no scientific basis, is a product of religion, and as agreed upon by the US Supreme Court, not real science. So no, there is no way to scientifically prove the idea of "Intelligent Design".